Narrative research Time for a paradigm Gabriela Spector-Mersel Department of Social Work and Department of Sociology of Health and Gerontology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel As a result of the popularization of the narrative idea and the considerable diver- sity existing among narrative studies, a rather “all included” conception has aris- en, in which the framework of narrative inquiry has been significantly blurred. For narrative inquiry to persist as a unique mode of investigation into human nature, a complementary dialogue is required that aims at outlining its core, alongside the emphasis given in the literature on diversity as its hallmark. As a possible reference point for this debate, recognizing the narrative paradigm that has crystallized since the “narrative turn” is suggested. The narrative paradigm is discussed in light of six major dimensions — ontology, epistemology, methodol- ogy, inquiry aim, inquirer posture and participant/narrator posture — indicating that it coincides with other interpretive paradigms in certain aspects yet proffers a unique philosophical infrastructure that gives rise to particular methodologi- cal principles and methods. Considering the narrative paradigm as the essence of narrative inquiry asserts that the latter is not confined to a methodology, as often implied. Rather it constitutes a full-fledged research Weltanschauung that intimately connects the “hows” of investigation to the “whats”, namely premises about the nature of reality and our relationships with it. Keywords: qualitative research, narrative research, narrative paradigm, ontology, epistemology, methodology Over the last three decades a “narrative turn” has been taking place in the human sciences. The narrative1 has been expropriated from the humanities, especially from literary scholarship where it was well established, penetrating almost every social discipline: psychology, anthropology, sociology, folklore, history, sociolinguistics, Address for correspondence: Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel 84105. E-mail: [email protected] Narrative Inquiry 20:1 (2010), 204–224. doi 10.1075/ni.20.1.10spe issn 1387–6740 / e-issn 1569–9935 © John Benjamins Publishing Company Narrative research: Time for a paradigm 205 communication, cultural studies, gender studies, gerontology and others. As Mish- ler (2006, p. iv) notes, “With surprising speed, the loosely defined field of narra- tive studies has moved from its early marginal status in the human sciences to a robust legitimacy.” Narrative thinking has not stopped at the doors of academe and has become practice in major professions including psychotherapy, social work, education, counseling, mediation, organizational transformation, law, medicine, occupational therapy and conflict resolution (Gergen & Gergen, 2006; Riessman & Speedy, 2007). Importantly, it has penetrated into popular discourse. The term narrative has become tremendously widespread and the idea that every individual, family, organization and group “has their narrative” is common knowledge. Similarly to Rimmon-Kenan’s sense (2006) regarding the openness of current uses of the term narrative, the expansion of narrative thinking is both exciting and bewildering. Whilst it constitutes an affirmative development, giving much satisfaction to its adherents, something might be lost, as in any process of popu- larization. Just as the term narrative “has come to mean anything and everything” (Riessman & Speedy, 2007, p. 428), it often seems that this is the case for narrative research also. Reading through the narrative literature, diversity appears to be the name of the game. Not only due to the actual variety in narrative studies, but also because it is discussed as the main feature of the field. That narrative inquiry comprises multiple origins, methods and disciplines is stressed in every book, handbook chapter and article introducing it, suggesting that its “hallmark is diversity — in theory, method, and subject-matter” (Mishler 2006, p. iv). Diversity is definitely a good thing, corresponding both with the pluralistic nature of narrative epistemol- ogy and current trends towards interdisciplinarity. But is it the most prominent mark of narrative inquiry? Moreover, might it be the case that by our constant emphasis on multiplicity, we are in some way encouraging an “all included” con- ception, implying that the major characteristic of narrative research is its being uncharacterizable? The diversity of narrative inquiry may actually put in question its mere existence as an identifiable field. As Michael Bamberg points out, the in- creasing diversification into different narrative methods and approaches has led to the question whether there still is a common core to the “narrative approach” (personal communication, May 14, 2009). Trusting that a narrative approach (still) exists as a distinct kind of inquiry into human nature, I suggest that alongside the continuous celebration of its di- versity, another dialogue should be re-opened, one that, following Bamberg, aims at looking for its core. Three decades after the “narrative turn” it seems necessary to return to the basics, asking what narrative research — presently — is? What makes it a distinct form of inquiry, different from other types of qualitative inqui- ry? Such an examination, possibly leading to further disagreements and diversity, 206 Gabriela Spector-Mersel is required for the “narrative approach” mean something and not anything; for securing it from being dissolved in popularization. In this paper I attempt to touch upon the core of narrative inquiry by outlining the narrative paradigm. I will try to demonstrate that the plentiful writing on narrative throughout the last decades in its aspects of theory, research and practice points to basic beliefs, specifically to the three fundamental elements that form a paradigm: ontology, epistemology and methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2005). Although a narrative paradigm has been established, the paradigmatic lens is generally underused when considering it. Both in the general field of qualita- tive research and in the more specific narrative literature, narrative research is commonly referred to as a method of collecting and analyzing empirical materials (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005b), a methodology (Clandinin, 2007a), or at best a quali- tative approach (Creswell, 2007) or a subtype of qualitative inquiry (Chase, 2005). From a perspective that considers the form alongside the content, it is hard to dis- miss this tendency as “just words”. By maintaining that a narrative paradigm has been formed and urging the use of paradigmatic vocabulary, I assert my position that the core of narrative inquiry combines both a philosophical stance towards the nature of social reality and our relationship with it, and the mode in which it should be studied. Indeed, this intertwining of what and how, of Weltanschauung and a research strategy, accounted for the narrative turn. The proposed outline of the narrative paradigm rests upon three premises. First, while narrative research has deep roots, extending to the late 19th century, the narrative paradigm has been articulated mainly during the last three decades, relying on constructivist, postmodern and performance notions. Secondly, by identifying the narrative paradigm I do not intend to detach or isolate it from qualitative research, its natural home. Rather, I suggest considering it as a distinc- tive qualitative paradigm which contains both commonalities and differences with other interpretative paradigms. Finally, my invitation to recognize the narrative paradigm in no way overlooks the considerable diversity existing within it. Like every research paradigm, the narrative paradigm constitutes a broad — yet dis- tinct — framework within which various approaches, theoretical orientations and analysis practices coexist. After a brief account of the historical and philosophical background of narra- tive research, I will delineate the major dimensions of the narrative paradigm — ontology, epistemology, methodology, inquiry aim, inquirer posture and partici- pant/narrator posture — touching both on the multiplicity within the paradigm and its relations with other interpretive paradigms; where they coincide and where they differ. I will conclude with some thoughts about the importance of recogniz- ing the narrative paradigm, suggesting it as a reference point for further dialogue on contemporary narrative inquiry. Narrative research: Time for a paradigm 207 Historical and philosophical background At the beginning of the previous century narratives were employed to study hu- man reality in major disciplines. History has traditionally told stories; anthropol- ogy used biographical methods already in the 19th century and expanded them at the beginning of the 20th century; the first preferred genre in clinical psychology was the case study, in which individuals’ stories are scrutinized. Even sociology, the only social sciences` discipline born positivist, employed narrative methods. Thomas and Znaniecki’s (1918–1920) study of immigration, based on a single peasant’s biography, was a significant landmark that inspired the biographical re- search of the Chicago School in the 1920s and 1930s (Pinnegar & Daynes, 2007). With the professionalization of the disciplines the positivist paradigm became dominant. Biographical methods were seen as amateurish and after WWII became marginalized (Denzin, 1989). Renewed interest in these